Fyi, I'm not negating evolution per se. I'm operating strictly within the realm of the empiricism-based scientific method. It should not be so sensitive to scru

Fyi, I'm not negating evolution per se. I'm operating strictly within the realm of the empiricism-based scientific method. It should not be so sensitive to scrutiny and skepticism. So creationism or not, let me pose the simple challenge to you as well: Can you name a single species whose speciation-by-random-mutation we have actually observed? You see, the hard fact, which many of my beloved scientistic friends have yet to come to terms with, is that technically speaking, the speciation-by-random-mutation is a scientifically invalid hypothesis because it is not even falsifiable. In other words, it is a mere conjecture (and sadly nowadays even a doctrinal belief) like any other, from an honest, objective, naturalistic point of view. But I don't even need to get into that because most of my beloved atheists will already have more of an impulsive emotional reaction to that rather than facing it head-on.